Los Angeles daily herald., 1887-01-20

| we have is the testimony of Pico. Cohn
| Johnson, and the evidence furnished by
the deed. The statements OF Johnson after
| the transaction to third parties concerning
| the terms of the agreement were admitted
| for purposes of impeachment, and for that
purpose they were successful, but they can.
not be admitted as statements binding upon
COhn. Hence the issue is: Is Cohn or Pico
| to he believed?
Cohn denies the agreement set up by Pico
i Pico claims that he was to have on or be-
fore the lst of July. 1858. in which to re-
deem. With mortgages and liens running
| claims. his friends who had made previous
| offers, we would naturally expect man in
such condition, with only three months la
| which to save his properties, IT, be actively
raise the necessary funds. He had put off
the inevitable day of settlement. We find
him breathing easily, living at his ranch,
| and, as will be seen hereafter, not only not
/ seeking relief from those who would be
likely to advise and assist him, but stoutly
asserting that he knew his own bust
ness. He knows and says he knew
the nature of defeasance, and
its necessity, and it appears that it had
neys. He is told that The defeasance exc
cuted by Cohn is in the vault or safe OF
Brodrlck. He never. goes to Brodrick to in
quire, but says that he did not, because he
had no wish to imply that he doubted Cohn
yet in another place stoutly atfirms that he
| did not know that Brodrick had anything
| to do with the transaction. 1t was not con-
| sistent for him to go, and his excuse is un-
reasonable. He could not have expected
to have hurt Brodrick's feelings.
After the sale Pico tells John Robarts. in
| reply to the question why he had sold to
Cohn for SO small sum: HE knew his
own business, that Cohn was his friend,
and If any one could make anything out OF
it he would rather he would make it thau
anybody else"
He tells Roques: II am glad am out of
this affair; sold all of my property to Mr..
B. Cohn."
He tells Forbes: "Yes, sold the property.
1 was not going to allow my throat-or
rope put around my neck to choke me;
didn't give rue time nor nothing; they were
promising and promising, and never got
Pico denies this, and says he told him: II
had made a contract with Mr.. Cohn for
three months"
There Is evidence in the cause from Pico
Qf Pico is to be believed), ard from some
surroundings. sufficient to raise suspicion
of CT hn's motives. The reply Of Conn to
the tender on the part of plaintiff, standing
by itself. unexplained, would give. rise to
some suspicion but in the light OF the ex-
planation of the defendant the Court can
not and does not construe 1t into an admis-
sion. His explana ion is. that If they want
ed the property. to buy it,worse than ne did,
they could have 1t by paying him sls5,OOO.
BILE, when we consider that COhn is not q
lawyer, and is not to be expected to always
weigh the legal effect of dubious express
sion. The Court must get behind the cloud
on the face of the reply, and consider 1t in
connection with all the circumstances OF
the case, and 1t has endeavored to do SO.
The payment of $3.50 to johnson is a cir
cumstance of similar character. There
seems to have been no concealment of this
payment. 1t was entered upon Mr.. Cohn's
books, and presented with the other ac-
counts to the Court; and reaching the con-
clusion which the Court does upon the case
as a whole, the transaction does not appear
80 unusual as to be sufficient reason, even
in connection with the reply to the tender,
for the Court to declare the instrument OF
conveyance either mortgage or the con-
tract that of a conditional sale.
Pico has not only, as remarked before,
made admissions contradicting his own
testimony. but his statement of what
trauspired at the time of the signing of the
deed is 30 fully contradicted as to be
unworthy of belief. He cannot be laboring
request to go. the visit to Baker Block de-
scribes the rooms, the table. the chairs, the
conversation, too minutely. 1t is sufficient
to say that, If his account OF the contract is
correct, he is unfortunate in not being
sufficiently strong witness for himself; the
Court does not believe him.
can find no loan nor conditional sale
supported by evidence; and it only remains
1Or tDe COurC 10 say tnat tne ueeu uust
stand as expressing the time of an absolute
sale.
Objections made to the admission OF tes
timony and taken under advisement are
overruled, and such testimony was consid
cred by the Court in arriving at a conclu-
sion.
WIN. A. CHENEY, Judge.
THE JUDGMENT.
In the Superior Court of the County of Los
Angeles, State of CalifOrnia-Pio Pico vs.
B Cohn, ct al NO. =.
In this cause. the Court having fled its
written findings of fact and conclusions of
law, and having directed that judgment be
entered in accordance Herewith. now,
therefore, by reason of said findings, con
clusions and order. it is hereby ordered,
adjudged and decreed that plaintiff Pho
Pico take nothing by this action, and that
defendants b. Cohn, W. ]. Brodrick, and
Charles Prayer. do have and recover Of and
from said plsintiff Pho Pico, their costs
taxed atal, ,043.65. and that they have ex.
ecution therefor.
Done and signed in open court this 18th
day of January, 1887.
WM CHENEY Judpa